Bayh has always been shall we say a frustrating sort. Never a profile in courage.
This marks perhaps the kindest response from the liberal blogosphere to Evan Bayh’s decision to leave the Senate. Michael Tomasky’s thoughts from across the pond (The Guardian is published in the United Kingdom) at least gives Bayh the benefit of the doubt as to his future. Perhaps because there is talk that his hasty exit might open the way to a Republican takeover of his seat on November, the conservative blogs have been somewhat kinder. John Stossel offers a positive view of the move based on Bayh’s remarks that he could create more jobs in private industry. This drew a strong response from Matthew Yglesias:
The popularity of this sort of rhetoric among small-government types mostly illustrates how small-brained they are. It should be both obvious and uncontroversial to observe that the policy environment shaped by congress has an impact on the welfare of the American people that far exceeds that of most businesses. This is equally true whether or not you’re skeptical of the value of activist government.
James Fallows follows a similar argument in questioning the timing and suddenness of Bayh’s exit:
If he really cared about his Indiana constituents and their problems through that time, great! But if so, how can he walk away with this kind of careless disregard about whether, in the style of his departure, he is smashing up things that had said were important to him. If, on the other hand, these issues and people never really mattered that much, and public life had been a kind of popularity contest — well, that may be true of a lot of politicians, but they don’t like to reveal it quite this bluntly.
However, even the tone of these arguments seems civil compared to some of the other tongue lashings that have been handed out at Evan Bayh’s expense:
The Pernicious Influence Of Lefty Blogs | Ta-Nehisi Coates
To double down, it’s not so much that he’s “centrist,” or “moderate,” it’s that his centrism has no real policy core. I don’t know how you support the Bush tax-cuts and style yourself a deficit hawk. Policy-wise, there’s nothing “leftist” about being against the Iraq War. But politically-speaking, the anti-war folks were caricatured as a bunch of hippies who don’t understand national security.
…
But so often with “centrist” Dems, I feel like I’m just watching people take positions so that they can claim to be moderate/independent because it sounds good.
The Emptiness of Evan Bayh | Ross Douthat
America needs politicians who stake out interesting, politically-courageous positions on important policy questions. What it doesn’t need is politicians who occupy the safest possible ground on the great issues of the day, shift slightly left or slightly right depending on the state of public opinion, and then get congratulated by the press for being so independent-minded.
Simply put: He’s an immoral person who conducts his affairs in public life with a callous disregard for the impact of his decisions on human welfare. He’s sad he’s not going to be president? He doesn’t like liberal activists? He finds senate life annoying? Well, boo-hoo. We all shed a tear.
This was just a completely unremarkable man who, had he not been the handsome son of a famous politician, would never in a million years have been a Senator.
If you’ve been a regular reader of my work, you know that I’m typically not this heavy on the quotations, and if you’re one to follow the links, then you might notice that I’ve been very particular in my editing of the quotes that I have shared. All of this is to highlight the point: dialogue on the political landscape has all but come to a standstill.
With the TEA Party movement apparently gaining momentum (or at least media coverage), this isn’t a particularly astute observation. Yet I think that Bayh’s retirement has opened the door to understanding that this isn’t just a right-wing phenomenon. The critiques leveled at Bayh’s centrism, whether warranted or not, still indicate a “do-nothingness” on the part of political moderates who have passed over opportunities to try and foster compromise and move government forward. (Anyone remember Henry Clay from their U.S. history courses?) The venom spewed in Bayh’s direction, again, whether warranted or not, has exposed the frustration on the left and its willingness to resort to verbal broadsides as well. Frankly, we’re all failing to rise to the occasion when it comes addressing the issues we face.
I doubt that I can sum it up any better than Daniel Schorr’s commentary for All Things Considered:
That [Bayh’s decision] will have electoral consequences goes without saying. But the sullen mood of America goes beyond shifting party loyalties. Many Americans seem close to rejecting the whole machinery of government that Evan Bayh found wanting. What happens when the people turn their back on their government is a phenomenon that this democracy has yet to experience.
I can only pray that we find a way to reclaim our role as citizens who share this economic and political space that we call the United States of America.
——–
Cross posted at the Xenia Institute.













Comments
Leave a comment Trackback